If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Things are getting interesting. So those reports of the BMW F82 M4 having 444 horsepower that had fanboys complaining? It is looking like it will have even less than that out of the gate with a claimed 416 horsepower. Please do not throw anything at your monitor. BMW is having fun charging twice for horsepower these days with "Performance" software swaps so it is basically a certainty that just like the M5/M6 the M3/M4 will have a Competition Package that should boost output above the 444 horse figure reported earlier with a claimed 35 horse gain from the package.

The F10 M5 and F12/F13 M6 need their horsepower and torque to move their huge asses, especially the M5 which is a fat pig. An emphasis on lighter weight is exactly what BMW needs. Frankly, it's long overdue but clearly BMW is responding to the warranted criticism. It is difficult to claim to be Efficient and Dynamic when the cars outweigh the competition.

If what AutoBild reports is true then the M4 will weigh 100 kilograms less than the standard 4-Series. That would mean a curb weight in the ~3300 pound range. It sounds almost too good to be true but with optional ceramic brakes and various lightweight body pieces they may hit that weight. That would make this the lightest M3 (shut up Bimmerboost knows they are calling it an M4) since the E36. Now that is something to be proud of. It also makes the F80 and F82 chassis designations versus the F30 for the 3-Series and the F32 for the 4-Series suddenly make sense if the construction materials differ greatly.

Other options other than the ceramic brakes and competition package include a valved exhaust system and 20 inch wheels. Oh, and a 6-speed manual option of course. The 7-speed DCT will not be forced on you (as it should not be in a drivers car).

This is much, much better than anticipated if accurate. It seems BMW is finally responding to the criticism of fat cars that no longer offer the best driving experience in their class. It is a certainty that the new W205 C63 AMG will outpower this car with its 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 but if the new M3 is significantly lighter it will not need as much power to compensate while at the same time running circles around the C63 AMG on the roadcourse.

Limp mode issues will still be a concern with the turbo motor on the track and we will have to just wait and see how it holds up in a racetrack environment.

BMW and M are certainly not back as that once special M shine and swagger will forever be diminished but this is at the very least (once again, providing it is accurate) a step back in the right direction after quite a long string of BMW and M disappointments. Let's all keep our fingers crossed.

God if that weight is true, I'm excited. But not for 416 hp. I'm sorry, that's just not enough. Its adequate, sure. But the next C63 is going to be a cruise missile, I really think they need to hit that 444 number to be taken seriously. Unless its making like 420 lb ft as well. Still...I like big numbers. But this is shaping up to be an awesome car no matter what...maybe might have to put the new car plans on hold for a bit. Good point about the chassis codes...makes a lot of sense.

God if that weight is true, I'm excited. But not for 416 hp. I'm sorry, that's just not enough. Its adequate, sure. But the next C63 is going to be a cruise missile, I really think they need to hit that 444 number to be taken seriously. Unless its making like 420 lb ft as well. Still...I like big numbers. But this is shaping up to be an awesome car no matter what...maybe might have to put the new car plans on hold for a bit. Good point about the chassis codes...makes a lot of sense.

So you'll tune it or get the competition package. Add the 35 hp and you get 451 which is the same projected for the C63 AMG. Coincidence? I doubt it.

So you'll tune it or get the competition package. Add the 35 hp and you get 451 which is the same projected for the C63 AMG. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Yeah but...I really hate this sandbagging BS. I mean, they seem to be massively under-reporting power on the turbo motors, so maybe 416 is BMW code for 450+ anyway. I won't really have an opinion formed till I see baseline stock dynos.

I also don't know how much stock I place in an article that looks to me like they photoshopped the writer into the press pics of the new M4. In fact, my expertise in photoshopping indicates to me that this was definitely photoshopped. And kind of a bad one at that.

I also doubt that the M3 test mules would have a lower redline than the final product. BMW's test cars are usually scary close to the final product.

I'll believe it when I see it on the dealer lots. At this time, all these specs look just like a magazine trying to sell some big news by making it up.

I read in Car and Driver a few years ago that the new Mustang would be a 6.2 liter. I enjoy keeping old magazines so I can go back and look at how wrong they were. And I could probably count on one hand the times their guesses actually came true.

"Reading" the article, it says that it creates the 422PS/416HP from 5400-7000RPM, meaning the power is falling from 7000-redline, making it useless. Boooooo.

Approximately 100 ft-lbs more torque in the same range as the V8 (1900 to 5400 RPM) - that's decent, especially considering the weight, but I am not happy about the redline (in reality, should be 7000 if the turbos are out of breath).

Interesting article though - definitely going to handle great considering the weight, that's for sure.

Who cares what the redline is if the thing is gutless over 6000 rpm, as most high torque turbo cars tend to be. If they have it tuned for HP rather than torque, then 414 seems lacking, and $#@! them for making people pay even more to get to 450 with simply a hotter tune.

We need to see dyno graphs on this thing to really determine what's up with it. Interesting that they are calling it a twin turbo instead of twin scroll. Sounds more like N54 than N55 perhaps?

why so much focus on power for a "drivers" car? Keep the weight down, keep the 6-speed, keep it ///M

Because by adding turbos, it's less responsive hence less of a driver's car. If the gain is only fuel efficiency, and you lose the benefits of the "///M NA response" - and only get +2 peak HP and a lower redline? That's not worth the turbos in my book.

I also don't know how much stock I place in an article that looks to me like they photoshopped the writer into the press pics of the new M4. In fact, my expertise in photoshopping indicates to me that this was definitely photoshopped. And kind of a bad one at that.

I also doubt that the M3 test mules would have a lower redline than the final product. BMW's test cars are usually scary close to the final product.

I'll believe it when I see it on the dealer lots. At this time, all these specs look just like a magazine trying to sell some big news by making it up.

I read in Car and Driver a few years ago that the new Mustang would be a 6.2 liter. I enjoy keeping old magazines so I can go back and look at how wrong they were. And I could probably count on one hand the times their guesses actually came true.

I always enjoy seeing how the speculation stacks up to the final product.

If it doesn't have more hp than the E92 M3 without an option that's interesting to say the least.

Yeah but...I really hate this sandbagging BS. I mean, they seem to be massively under-reporting power on the turbo motors, so maybe 416 is BMW code for 450+ anyway. I won't really have an opinion formed till I see baseline stock dynos.

It would be underrated, more than likely. Then if you want more they charge you for it. Today's BMW...

Who cares what the redline is if the thing is gutless over 6000 rpm, as most high torque turbo cars tend to be. If they have it tuned for HP rather than torque, then 414 seems lacking, and $#@! them for making people pay even more to get to 450 with simply a hotter tune.

We need to see dyno graphs on this thing to really determine what's up with it. Interesting that they are calling it a twin turbo instead of twin scroll. Sounds more like N54 than N55 perhaps?

It would definitely be twin scroll. This will not be an N54 that's just N54 fanboys daydreaming. Twin turbo does not mean it is not twin scroll it just means two turbos.

Because by adding turbos, it's less responsive hence less of a driver's car. If the gain is only fuel efficiency, and you lose the benefits of the "///M NA response" - and only get +2 peak HP and a lower redline? That's not worth the turbos in my book.

You missed the main point and it is not fuel efficiency nor peak HP. A loss of 220 lbs over the 4 series variant (if true) is a major improvement and is "///M philosophy" to a T. Shave 220 lbs from your E9X M3 or E46 M3 and change NOTHING else - and it will transform the driving dynamics of the car - acceleration, handling, turn-in and braking.

Secondly, the throttle response component you mention is mere speculation. I doubt the difference in responsiveness between the outgoing powerplant and the new one is the chasm you implied. The motor will be less responsive than the N/A V8 no doubt - but not on par with the turbo-lag conspiracy I have been hearing from E9X owners. If we use the current turbo charged motors in the fleet as a comparison - F30 328, 335, and the 328d - we should be expecting slightly better responsiveness to merit the M badge.

I want to see the final weight of the sedan, and a stock dyno plot (particularly the torque curve) before I cast final judgement and a deposit.

God if that weight is true, I'm excited. But not for 416 hp. I'm sorry, that's just not enough. Its adequate, sure. But the next C63 is going to be a cruise missile, I really think they need to hit that 444 number to be taken seriously. Unless its making like 420 lb ft as well. Still...I like big numbers. But this is shaping up to be an awesome car no matter what...maybe might have to put the new car plans on hold for a bit. Good point about the chassis codes...makes a lot of sense.

Don't get too excited on the weight. Obviously the weights listed are without driver and fuel (normally on BMW's website they include driver/fuel). We all know the C63 doesn't weigh 3,648 as they state in the article.

1495 kg (3,295) is either without driver or without driver and without fuel.

It would definitely be twin scroll. This will not be an N54 that's just N54 fanboys daydreaming. Twin turbo does not mean it is not twin scroll it just means two turbos.

Twin scroll actually describes the turbine wheel on the turbo, it means there are two separate inlets for the turbine that press on usually slightly different turbine wheels. That allows for better spooling at low RPM with no boost penalty.

It would definitely be twin scroll. This will not be an N54 that's just N54 fanboys daydreaming. Twin turbo does not mean it is not twin scroll it just means two turbos.

how are you going to have 2 twin scroll turbos? there are only 6 exhaust ports. each turbo is going to get 3. twin scroll takes the exhaust gasses and sends them through a divided housing, one port is for quick response and the other is for top end. how are you going to divide 3 exhaust ports into 2 ports for the turbine housing? Yes the N63 does have 2 twin scroll turbos but..... it can divide the 4 exhaust ports on each side evenly, 2 per port in the turbine housing. runners for the smaller port are probably short in order to create higher velocity gasses to spool the turbo faster while the other runners are probably longer will less angle promoting better top end. bottom line is the S55 will not be twin-twin scroll. @VargasTurboTech please correct me if i'm way off here.